Specifications:The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a high performance, water-resistant, and ultra wide-angle Canon L-series lens. It has been specifically designed for improved edge-to-edge image quality that will meet the strict requirements of professional and high-end amateur photographers. It features 3 high-precision aspherical lens elements, each of a different type: ground, replica and GMo for even better image quality than the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM. The circular aperture produces a beautiful and natural background blur when shooting at wider apertures. Other features include internal focusing, a ring type USM (Ultra Sonic Monitor), and new AF algorithms for fast and quiet autofocusing.

As a photojournalist, this is a dream lens. Its my workhorse professionally and for travel. It focuses fast on a 5D Mark II and its versatility is its strongest attribute. I can shoot a street scene wide and then zoom in for a portrait seconds later.

It offers great contrast and that "look" that is so hard to explain but that most of the "L" lenses exhibit. Good color rendition but not as stunning as the 135mm or other well regarded primes. I have the 70-200mm f4 as well and this lens is also not as good for obvious design reasons (wide angle vs tele).

My only real complaint with this lens are the horribly inconsistent corners/edges from shot to shot, especially at f2.8. This is probably due to curvature of field and slight focus errors by me. However, I hear rumours of poor quality control in production and after testing a half dozen of these I tend to agree. There is a wide amount of sample variation on this lens so shop around. I would not recommend buying this lens online. Try the lens out in person and view images at 100% before purchasing.

Shooting landscapes on a tripod with a shutter release between f11 and f16 produces acceptable edges and corners. Not really that much better than a good copy of the Canon 17-40 f4, which is a much better value and lighter. I'll add that the 14mm f2.8 Mark II blows this away (not even close!) but you'll pay several hundred dollars more for it, doesn't offer the same versatility, and you can't use filters on it.

As for street shooting, I find bokeh is poor and its a bit too mushy/distorted in the corners overall at 16mm, which is to be expected for this type of design I guess. Images look a bit better stopped down to about f4.

Photos look fantastic in the 25-35 range. Edges are better on landscapes, bokeh is more pleasing, and portraits really "pop" with great 3D clarity.

Overall its a great lens for multi-purpose use. Its not perfect (and I tend to feel like it should be for the money it costs to buy one) but its definitely an important go-to lens for a working professional.

Good sharpness at 24 mm and 35 mm and in the center at 16 mm
Fast AF
Seals against dust and water

Cons:

Moderate sharpness at 16 and 35 mm at f/2.8 and f/4.0
Chromatic aberration a bit too high

The Canon 16-35 mm II has a fast autofocus and the finish is of a high level. Optical wise, there is something to be desired, especially in the 16 mm position. The sharpness in corners is pretty low, the vignetting is clearly visible and the distortion is high. At 24 mm the resolution becomes higher. In addition, the vignetting and distortion become much lower. In some aspects the cheaper Tokina 16-28 mm performs better than the Canon 16-35 mm II.

I only give this a "9" because it's slightly less sharp than the 70-200/2.8 IS which is not surprising. However I feel that 9 is still plenty. This lens has finally brought me the wider half of the Zoom Holy Duo (the other naturally being the 70-200). The only time this lens failed me was really my own fault: I dropped it and it became soft on the right side from the damage. Now, after being repaired, it's as good as ever.

Oh, and one more thing. A lot of people are complaining that lenses like this are too heavy for travelling and buy lightweight junk to replace it. For me, it's an ultimate travel lens because it's reliable and weather sealed. If you're going to a place you're pretty sure never to visit again in your life, the last thing you should be doing is trying to cheap out on photo gear, unless your true intention is to laze in the sun sipping mojito and not to take great pictures.

Regards...

Jan 18, 2012

jcsculptureOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 13, 2011Location: United StatesPosts: 0

Review Date: Dec 13, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 7

Pros:

Super fast AF, controlled distortion for an ultra-wide.

Cons:

Price.. only decently sharp at 2.8, not great at 35mm

I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16  35 L II and the Tamron 17  35 2.8  4.0. I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. I initially bought the Canon 16-35 2.8 L II, but was disappointed with the results. Not that it was bad, just for the price, it was just that it wasn't great. I was expecting more. So on a whim (had 30 days to return) I decided to try out the Tamron.

Summary;

The Tamron is very close and may even surpass the Canon in terms of sharpness when shot wide open  especially at 35mm in which case, the Tamron definitely surpasses the Canon. Canon beats the Tamron in regards to distortion, but ever so slightly. AF is better with the Canon - slightly faster, not significantly. Vignetting about the same. Canon has better saturation and contrast.

I had a hard time actually accepting my own test. I really wanted to love the Canon. This was one of the first times I had done a lens comparison with a Canon L lens and a third party lens. The price difference between the two was so dramatic, that I assumed the image quality would be as well. To be honest, I was shocked. Since the test revealed how close they performed, I returned the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 L II and kept the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0. IMO, the Canon is not worth spending and extra $1,000.

Fantastic wide angle lens that really shines on a full frame body such as the Canon 5D Mark II.

I originally had the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM which produced good images with high contrast and good colour reproduction, but sharpness was poor. In comparison, the 16-35mm II is ultra-sharp in the middle and more than acceptable in the corners (even when pixel peeping), with fantastic contrast and colours. The AF is fast and the build is solid.

I was never happy with my 17-40L. The corners are mushy and they are never on good levels even with small aperture.

The 16-35 II however is a totally different beast! The corners are already sharp at f/2.8! Price is a bit steep though... twice of 17-40L.

Nov 23, 2011

alexander65OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 3, 2011Location: AustriaPosts: 0

Review Date: Aug 3, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3

Pros:

Middle was sharp, lightweight compared to 2,8

Cons:

Corners never sharp, big minus in architecture; Competitors do it better for even less money

Bought this lens 2 years ago and never was really happy.
The middle, as expected, is sharp, BUT on a fullframe body like the 5dMkII you quickly see the not so impressive corners and edges: they are soft, absolutely not sharp, even going at f8, where every lens should shine.
I accepted it or used it only on the 1D, being a crop and so cutting of the worst.
After trying my first alternative, non original gear in my curiosity I found the Tokina 16-28/2,8 and:
it beats the Canon easily.
Iīm very sorry for Canon and I`m no friend of writing something bad, but the 16-35/2,8II was a lens I avoided, because of getting a headache looking at the pictures.
(Sure, 28mm on the long end is less then the Canon, but before reaching this the IQ is far superior).
I sold it.
End of the story.
P.S.: I`m quite happy with all my other Canon- Lenses!

on the side end, corners at f11 are still not completely sharp. 82mm filter size.

I have shot many ultra wides on my 5D Mark II, often comparing them side by side. These include 16-35 I, 16-35 II, 17-40, Nikon 14-25, Samyang 14, and canon tse 24.
Compared to 17-40, it is slightly better micro contrast, a little less distortion on the wide end, and better corners on the wide end. compared the the nikon, which I also use with an adapter, the corners, exp on wide end are softer. they are close at f11, although nikon still has an advantage. also nikon has better microcontrast. On the down side, nikon is a lot more flare prone, which can really decrease contrast. also the nikon does not take filters. This lens sweet spot is 19-22, although its good the rest of the range also, and stopped down, give very good full frame performance, though always not spectacular. Its also my favorite indoors video lens, and a wonderful PJ lens. Over all, its a lot like the 5d2, very versatile, very good in many areas, but not spectacular.

Apr 30, 2011

exphoseOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 27, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 60

Review Date: Feb 21, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,450.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Very sharp, fast, minimal distortion, no vignetting at least on 1.3x crop, don't miss any wide primes at all.

Cons:

82mm filters are expensive and you likely don't already have one, hood is pretty worthless and bulky.

Upgraded from a 17-40 4L, this is a bit better in every way... sharper, faster, weather sealing, nice MFD.

The go to lens for wide angle use, though not that great as a single walkaround lens. that's more of the 24-70 type lens anyways.

The 82mm filters are very expensive and it's annoying to not be able to share filters/caps with the more common 77mm and 72mm lenses.

Very sharp even at F2.8, don't feel that a 24mm 2.8 L is any sharper, in fact I thought mine wasn't as sharp so I sold it.

So I think now after a year I can draw a conclusion. The lens did not disappoint me. The lens is like to expect really robust and comfortable in the hand. It's really a pleasure to work with it. I don't miss IS, since it's not really necessary at this focal length.

The Canon EF 16-35 L II 2.8 provides excellent wide-angle shots, though of course there are distortions at the edges. They can easily be removed using Lightroom. It delivers consistently sharp images even down to the edges, my EOS 5D Mk II tends to light overexposure with this lens. A look at the histogram is therefore recommended after the shot.

First let me say that I had to try 2 copies of this lens before I got one that was spot on (I had the same problem with my 24-70L way back when). The first one was almost unusable.

If you manage to get a decent copy of this lens there aren't any negative points. Things like filter size and weight aren't cons, they're inconveniences, if anything. Come on, people! The problems/ cons for me personally lie in Canon's QC .... as far as I'm concerned, there's lots and lots of room for improvement here!

UWA lenses - no matter how sophisticated - will always have a certain amount of light fall-off or soft edges on a FF body, that's something you'll just have to live with, but if you get a decent copy of this lens you'll know you've got a decent copy!

F/2.8, 16mm on FF, 20.8mm-45.5mm on a 1D2, top-notch IQ and build are the reasons why I bought this lens.

I'm not gonna repeat what lots of people have already said; this is a suprior piece of optics, which costs money. If you need a UWA lens and you've got the cash then get it, and don't even consider going for 2nd best (ie 17-40L).

Oct 23, 2010

edgarchiengOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 15, 2010Location: AustraliaPosts: 0

Review Date: Aug 15, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

- The best zoom wide-angle lens in the Canon line up
- Sharp in the middle
- F2.8 is the icing on the cake
- It's not as heavy as I had expected
- Build like a tank
- Weather proof

Cons:

- Filter thread size
- A little bit on the expensive side
- A little distorted on the edges

I have used this for both photography and for video and it is awesome for videos. The large aperture wide angle view on a video is really something to praise for, because it is especially good during low light video filming.

Price is on the dear side but it is worth every single cent of it. Trust me, this is a tough lens and it can withstand most conditions you throw at it.

My only complain is the larger than usual filter thread size of 82mm. Other than that, this is highly recommended.

Replaced a very reliable 17-40. Absolutely no regrets, even though the price is almost 3Xs the 17-40. F 2.8 speed, build quality, contrast, all make this a super wide angle lens. Its has replaced my 24-70 as the lens always on the body. After 18 mos of use I simply love this lens and highly recommend.

Jun 27, 2010

PedroBenaventeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 22, 2010Location: PortugalPosts: 0

Review Date: May 22, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Fantastic colour, low-light performance, sharp, build quality, very good wide-angle even on 1.3x

Cons:

haven't found yet

I'm using it mainly on social events and photojournalism for a magazine.

Love the colour that I can take from it.

I don't find it heavy. If you want build quality it must have some weight.

I'm very happy with it, both with my 40D or Mark IV - with this last one it really rocks eaven at ISO 12800.

It could be cheaper, but every L lens its always a bit expensive than one would desire.